In January the Meaningful Vote was held as per subsection (1)(b).
Following its rejection, as per subsection (4) a statement was made.
Later subsections come into force on 21 January 2019 - obviously that has already happened too.
This was all done in January, we are past this now. There is no requirement for parliamentary approval of no deal - that is the point and why it can happen by default, it is already approved by invoking Article 50. What would need approving still is a deal but the parliamentary approval requirements set in law were fulfilled in January already.
I think its actually simpler than that.
snip
So Parliament could resolve to revoke. If they did we would remain members. Parliament cannot require that we leave with a deal. That is not in its power. It cannot stipulate that we don't leave without a deal. That is not in its power either.
Parliament has various levers it can attempt to pull to *encourage* a PM to seek an extension and to make the government's life difficult if we leave without a deal. Whether these would pass and whether they would work as incentives is up for debate. But to suggest there is nothing they can do is probably wrong.
It's only a week or two since certain Leavers were getting excited about the prospects of proroguing parliament; funnily enough we're not hearing so much about that now.
If Parliament wants to stop us leaving on 31st October they need to order the government to revoke. Nothing else is likely, let alone guaranteed, to work.
That was always the ultimate goal of Grieve and co. They should stop pratting about and just table that motion.
Order to revoke via motion? I am probably wrong but I understood that only way to stop No Deal (other than GE etc etc) was to pass legislation. A motion has no legal affect.
Indeed. However would not a motion be needed to take control of the timetable in order to pass the legislation, like Cooper-Boles.
The Dems need to pull their finger out because at the moment Trump is heading for another election victory IMO.
I'm certainly very nervous. All this talk of closing down private health insurance and going fully public is going to cost them with swing voters I think.
Not necessarily. A lot of Americans are finding their private insurance to be increasingly unaffordable, and all the GOP can offer is bringing back junk insurance that is affordable but gives practically no benefit. Existing Medicare for over-65s allows for private sector "top-up" plans and I'd bet the final proposal for "Medicare for all" which the Dem candidate next year will be running on will include the same.
And what about the cost? Ultimately, if you extend free healthcare further to poor Americans then middle class Americans will surely have to pay more (either directly or indirectly).
It's like the social care debate over here (remember Gordon Brown's "death tax")
In 2016 the USA spent 17% of its GDP on healthcare (source: World Bank) yet 27 million Americans has no health insurance of any kind (source: KFF) - and since Trump came to office that number has climbed steadily.
In the same year, the UK spent 9.76% of GDP on healthcare and had universal coverage.
I think it is fair to say there is room for improvement in the efficiency of US spending. Indeed not that long ago there was a suggestion an NHS would be needed to save them money because their system is simply unaffordable.
Nobody in US politics at moment cares about how the taxes are to be raised to cover the ballooning deficit. The Alt-Right Keynesians who support Trump have shown that the GOP no longer gives a stuff about deficits, debt or sound money.
There is an interview with Sam Cam in last Sunday's Times magazine. She is photographed (with her sister) in the Cameron's London flat/house. On the bookshelf behind her is the title:
"Why nations fail"
I wonder if Call Me Dave still thinks Brexit was “a mistake, not a disaster”.
No wonder he is keeping a low profile.
Wise Prime Ministers do.
One of the reasons Heath became such a joke is because he continued to prat around as a sore loser.
Thatcher's ongoing meddling in Tory politics consolidated people's dislike of her, and damaged the Tory party very badly.
Major and Brown, by contrast, who left with low approval ratings and everyone was glad to see them leave, are now looked back on with something akin to fond nostalgia.
Parliament voted overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The effect of that notice was that we left the EU 2 years later unless there was unanimous agreement between both parties that it should be extended. The notice was not conditional on a deal. Article 50 contemplates a deal but is not conditional on one being agreed.
We got unanimity on the first occasion and the period of notice was extended to 31st October. We will leave at that point unless (a) we again unanimously agree to a further extension or (b) we serve notice of revocation, an option given to us by the ECJ.
So Parliament could resolve to revoke. If they did we would remain members. Parliament cannot require that we leave with a deal. That is not in its power. It cannot stipulate that we don't leave without a deal. That is not in its power either.
Parliament has various levers it can attempt to pull to *encourage* a PM to seek an extension and to make the government's life difficult if we leave without a deal. Whether these would pass and whether they would work as incentives is up for debate. But to suggest there is nothing they can do is probably wrong.
It's only a week or two since certain Leavers were getting excited about the prospects of proroguing parliament; funnily enough we're not hearing so much about that now.
If Parliament wants to stop us leaving on 31st October they need to order the government to revoke. Nothing else is likely, let alone guaranteed, to work.
That appears to be where we're headed right now, in my view.
To be clear, I don't think that's a good thing.
I don't think either of these are good options but it is getting increasingly difficult to see how the "compromise" of May's deal with added fig leaves even gets back on the table.
The Dems need to pull their finger out because at the moment Trump is heading for another election victory IMO.
I'm certainly very nervous. All this talk of closing down private health insurance and going fully public is going to cost them with swing voters I think.
Not necessarily. A lot of Americans are finding their private insurance to be increasingly unaffordable, and all the GOP can offer is bringing back junk insurance that is affordable but gives practically no benefit. Existing Medicare for over-65s allows for private sector "top-up" plans and I'd bet the final proposal for "Medicare for all" which the Dem candidate next year will be running on will include the same.
And what about the cost? Ultimately, if you extend free healthcare further to poor Americans then middle class Americans will surely have to pay more (either directly or indirectly).
It's like the social care debate over here (remember Gordon Brown's "death tax")
In 2016 the USA spent 17% of its GDP on healthcare (source: World Bank) yet 27 million Americans has no health insurance of any kind (source: KFF) - and since Trump came to office that number has climbed steadily.
In the same year, the UK spent 9.76% of GDP on healthcare and had universal coverage.
I think it is fair to say there is room for improvement in the efficiency of US spending. Indeed not that long ago there was a suggestion an NHS would be needed to save them money because their system is simply unaffordable.
Despite people's beliefs that it is, the US system is most definitely not a free market system.
There are a lot of laws and regulations designed to please vested interests. In particular a number of laws designed to prevent drugs prices from coming down. The system there is completely broken.
Efficient is not a word that can be used to describe American healthcare at all.
You’re just a shill for “socialised medicine”.
America's system is the worst of all worlds. It is highly regulated nonsense.
Either a proper socialised medicine, or a great liberalisation and deregulation to get a proper free market solution would be a big improvement on the current mess.
That would be the lowest number of seats won by Labour since 1935 (coupled with the lowest Labour voteshare since 1918), appalling result for Corbyn Labour but the best LD result since 2005 (as well as a narrow Tory majority and SNP back close to 2015 level)
Flavible have BXP winning Thurrock and Hartlepool, and a striking string of LibDem gains through south, west and central London.
A big difference from UNS is their model putting the LibDems in play against Labour in such seats - whereas on straight swing the LibDem prospects are mostly Tory.
Yup, I think Emily Thornberry could be the LD scalp of the night
So you see the merit of Flavible now?
They are at least attempting to forecast the results that will 'surprise' next time (compared to expectations based on conventional swing) - just as Mansfield, Canterbury and Kensington did last time. It's quite clear the next election won't be a straight swing election.
Maybe but even Electoral Calculus has Thornberry losing her seat to the LDs on today's Yougov
Looking at their technical notes, Baxter has moved further away from UNS than I had imagined, with tweaks to allow for regional variations, tactical voting, and differences in swing between Remain and Leave voters.
You would need some hefty departures from UNS to turn Thornberry’s 50% margin over the LibDems into a loss.
Just arrived in Dublin's fair city and realised that is the last time I go through the EU passports channel there. Thanks, arseholes.
Just for the record, under the terms of the CTA, UK Citizens do NOT require a passport to visit Dublin. One or two airlines (notably Ryanair) will only accept a passport as ID, the rest will accept any form of photo ID such as driving licence, works ID or bus pass. If travelling to Ireland by ferry, you are advised to have some form of photo ID but in my experience, no ID checks are ever made in either direction.
Parliament voted overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The effect of that notice was that we left the EU 2 years later unless there was unanimous agreement between both parties that it should be extended. The notice was not conditional on a deal. Article 50 contemplates a deal but is not conditional on one being agreed.
We got unanimity on the first occasion and the period of notice was extended to 31st October. We will leave at that point unless (a) we again unanimously agree to a further extension or (b) we serve notice of revocation, an option given to us by the ECJ.
So Parliament could resolve to revoke. If they did we would remain members. Parliament cannot require that we leave with a deal. That is not in its power. It cannot stipulate that we don't leave without a deal. That is not in its power either.
Parliament has various levers it can attempt to pull to *encourage* a PM to seek an extension and to make the government's life difficult if we leave without a deal. Whether these would pass and whether they would work as incentives is up for debate. But to suggest there is nothing they can do is probably wrong.
It's only a week or two since certain Leavers were getting excited about the prospects of proroguing parliament; funnily enough we're not hearing so much about that now.
If Parliament wants to stop us leaving on 31st October they need to order the government to revoke. Nothing else is likely, let alone guaranteed, to work.
That appears to be where we're headed right now, in my view.
To be clear, I don't think that's a good thing.
I don't think either of these are good options but it is getting increasingly difficult to see how the "compromise" of May's deal with added fig leaves even gets back on the table.
I see no reason why it should. Parliament had 3 chances to pass that already and now opponents of the deal have taken charge.
If the EU wants to prevent no deal they can give a better deal. No fig leaves, a genuine improvement. Otherwise I think we are heavily odds-on now to have no deal on 31 October. About time too.
The Dems need to pull their finger out because at the moment Trump is heading for another election victory IMO.
I'm certainly very nervous. All this talk of closing down private health insurance and going fully public is going to cost them with swing voters I think.
Not necessarily. A lot of Americans are finding their private insurance to be increasingly unaffordable, and all "Medicare for all" which the Dem candidate next year will be running on will include the same.
And what about the cost? Ultimately, if you extend free healthcare further to poor Americans then middle class Americans will surely have to pay more (either directly or indirectly).
It's like the social care debate over here (remember Gordon Brown's "death tax")
In 2016 the USA spent 17% of its GDP on healthcare (source: World Bank) yet 27 million Americans has no health insurance of any kind (source: KFF) - and since Trump came to office that number has climbed steadily.
In the same year, the UK spent 9.76% of GDP on healthcare and had universal coverage.
I think it is fair to say there is room for improvement in the efficiency of US spending. Indeed not that long ago there was a suggestion an NHS would be needed to save them money because their system is simply unaffordable.
Despite people's beliefs that it is, the US system is most definitely not a free market system.
There are a lot of laws and regulations designed to please vested interests. In particular a number of laws designed to prevent drugs prices from coming down. The system there is completely broken.
Efficient is not a word that can be used to describe American healthcare at all.
You’re just a shill for “socialised medicine”.
America's system is the worst of all worlds. It is highly regulated nonsense.
Either a proper socialised medicine, or a great liberalisation and deregulation to get a proper free market solution would be a big improvement on the current mess.
The most remarkable factoid is that the state-funded bits of the US system (mostly for veterans and medicare/aid) actually cost more tax $ per head than the our NHS covering everybody.
Parliament voted overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The effect of that notice was that we left the EU 2 years later unless there was unanimous agreement between both parties that it should be extended. The notice was not conditional on a deal. Article 50 contemplates a deal but is not conditional on one being agreed.
We got unanimity on the first occasion and the period of notice was extended to 31st October. We will leave at that point unless (a) we again unanimously agree to a further extension or (b) we serve notice of revocation, an option given to us by the ECJ.
So Parliament could resolve to revoke. If they did we would remain members. Parliament cannot require that we leave with a deal. That is not in its power. It cannot stipulate that we don't leave without a deal. That is not in its power either.
Parliament has various levers it can attempt to pull to *encourage* a PM to seek an extension and to make the government's life difficult if we leave without a deal. Whether these would pass and whether they would work as incentives is up for debate. But to suggest there is nothing they can do is probably wrong.
It's only a week or two since certain Leavers were getting excited about the prospects of proroguing parliament; funnily enough we're not hearing so much about that now.
If Parliament wants to stop us leaving on 31st October they need to order the government to revoke. Nothing else is likely, let alone guaranteed, to work.
That appears to be where we're headed right now, in my view.
To be clear, I don't think that's a good thing.
I don't think either of these are good options but it is getting increasingly difficult to see how the "compromise" of May's deal with added fig leaves even gets back on the table.
The deal has been dead since last December. By far Theresa May's most disgraceful decision was to neither resign nor seek alternative ways forward. She bears a heavy responsibility for the current impasse.
That would be the lowest number of seats won by Labour since 1935 (coupled with the lowest Labour voteshare since 1918), appalling result for Corbyn Labour but the best LD result since 2005 (as well as a narrow Tory majority and SNP back close to 2015 level)
Flavible have BXP winning Thurrock and Hartlepool, and a striking string of LibDem gains through south, west and central London.
A big difference from UNS is their model putting the LibDems in play against Labour in such seats - whereas on straight swing the LibDem prospects are mostly Tory.
Yup, I think Emily Thornberry could be the LD scalp of the night
So you see the merit of Flavible now?
They are at least attempting to forecast the results that will 'surprise' next time (compared to expectations based on conventional swing) - just as Mansfield, Canterbury and Kensington did last time. It's quite clear the next election won't be a straight swing election.
Maybe but even Electoral Calculus has Thornberry losing her seat to the LDs on today's Yougov
Looking at their technical notes, Baxter has moved further away from UNS than I had imagined, with tweaks to allow for regional variations, tactical voting, and differences in swing between Remain and Leave voters.
You would need some hefty departures from UNS to turn Thornberry’s 50% margin over the LibDems into a loss.
Indeed - and even Yougov now has Labour ahead in London.
Despite people's beliefs that it is, the US system is most definitely not a free market system.
There are a lot of laws and regulations designed to please vested interests. In particular a number of laws designed to prevent drugs prices from coming down. The system there is completely broken.
Efficient is not a word that can be used to describe American healthcare at all.
One of the problems with debates over healthcare funding in this country is that people always draw a false dichotomy between our system, on the one hand, and the American system on the other.
Nobody with a brain would pick the American system, because it's (a) rubbish (b) expensive (c) corrupt as hell.
But nobody ever seems to be able to say why the NHS is so superior to the German or Dutch systems.* There's sometimes an almost fetishistic attachment to it that's just embarrassing.
*To be clear, neither of those are perfect either. But I suspect the real reason no politician wants to go for them is because they're more expensive.
That would be the lowest number of seats won by Labour since 1935 (coupled with the lowest Labour voteshare since 1918), appalling result for Corbyn Labour but the best LD result since 2005 (as well as a narrow Tory majority and SNP back close to 2015 level)
Flavible have BXP winning Thurrock and Hartlepool, and a striking string of LibDem gains through south, west and central London.
A big difference from UNS is their model putting the LibDems in play against Labour in such seats - whereas on straight swing the LibDem prospects are mostly Tory.
Yup, I think Emily Thornberry could be the LD scalp of the night
So you see the merit of Flavible now?
They are at least attempting to forecast the results that will 'surprise' next time (compared to expectations based on conventional swing) - just as Mansfield, Canterbury and Kensington did last time. It's quite clear the next election won't be a straight swing election.
Maybe but even Electoral Calculus has Thornberry losing her seat to the LDs on today's Yougov
Parliament has various levers it can attempt to pull to *encourage* a PM to seek an extension and to make the government's life difficult if we leave without a deal. Whether these would pass and whether they would work as incentives is up for debate. But to suggest there is nothing they can do is probably wrong.
It's only a week or two since certain Leavers were getting excited about the prospects of proroguing parliament; funnily enough we're not hearing so much about that now.
If Parliament wants to stop us leaving on 31st October they need to order the government to revoke. Nothing else is likely, let alone guaranteed, to work.
That appears to be where we're headed right now, in my view.
To be clear, I don't think that's a good thing.
I don't think either of these are good options but it is getting increasingly difficult to see how the "compromise" of May's deal with added fig leaves even gets back on the table.
The deal has been dead since last December. By far Theresa May's most disgraceful decision was to neither resign nor seek alternative ways forward. She bears a heavy responsibility for the current impasse.
Something we can agree on Alastair. But I have a faint hope that the EU will give Boris some token that allows him to bring the deal back to the House one more time. It is by far the best option available to us and those who voted against it should be ashamed of themselves.
America's system is the worst of all worlds. It is highly regulated nonsense.
Either a proper socialised medicine, or a great liberalisation and deregulation to get a proper free market solution would be a big improvement on the current mess.
The most remarkable factoid is that the state-funded bits of the US system (mostly for veterans and medicare/aid) actually cost more tax $ per head than the our NHS covering everybody.
Indeed. Partially [but not just] due to medicines. Our NHS uses its bargaining power to negotiate hard for cheaper medicines. In the USA medicare doing that is remarkably illegal so they just pay whatever extortionate over the top gouged prices companies want.
Despite people's beliefs that it is, the US system is most definitely not a free market system.
There are a lot of laws and regulations designed to please vested interests. In particular a number of laws designed to prevent drugs prices from coming down. The system there is completely broken.
Efficient is not a word that can be used to describe American healthcare at all.
One of the problems with debates over healthcare funding in this country is that people always draw a false dichotomy between our system, on the one hand, and the American system on the other.
Nobody with a brain would pick the American system, because it's (a) rubbish (b) expensive (c) corrupt as hell.
But nobody ever seems to be able to say why the NHS is so superior to the German or Dutch systems.* There's sometimes an almost fetishistic attachment to it that's just embarrassing.
*To be clear, neither of those are perfect either. But I suspect the real reason no politician wants to go for them is because they're more expensive.
Minor quibble - the US system provides probably the best healthcare in the world, if you're really rich.
Parliament has various levers it can attempt to pull to *encourage* a PM to seek an extension and to make the government's life difficult if we leave without a deal. Whether these would pass and whether they would work as incentives is up for debate. But to suggest there is nothing they can do is probably wrong.
It's only a week or two since certain Leavers were getting excited about the prospects of proroguing parliament; funnily enough we're not hearing so much about that now.
If Parliament wants to stop us leaving on 31st October they need to order the government to revoke. Nothing else is likely, let alone guaranteed, to work.
That appears to be where we're headed right now, in my view.
To be clear, I don't think that's a good thing.
I don't think either of these are good options but it is getting increasingly difficult to see how the "compromise" of May's deal with added fig leaves even gets back on the table.
The deal has been dead since last December. By far Theresa May's most disgraceful decision was to neither resign nor seek alternative ways forward. She bears a heavy responsibility for the current impasse.
Something we can agree on Alastair. But I have a faint hope that the EU will give Boris some token that allows him to bring the deal back to the House one more time. It is by far the best option available to us and those who voted against it should be ashamed of themselves.
Why should Boris be content with a token?
If the EU wants to avoid no deal they can give us a real change. If they don't, so be it.
Despite people's beliefs that it is, the US system is most definitely not a free market system.
There are a lot of laws and regulations designed to please vested interests. In particular a number of laws designed to prevent drugs prices from coming down. The system there is completely broken.
Efficient is not a word that can be used to describe American healthcare at all.
One of the problems with debates over healthcare funding in this country is that people always draw a false dichotomy between our system, on the one hand, and the American system on the other.
Nobody with a brain would pick the American system, because it's (a) rubbish (b) expensive (c) corrupt as hell.
But nobody ever seems to be able to say why the NHS is so superior to the German or Dutch systems.* There's sometimes an almost fetishistic attachment to it that's just embarrassing.
*To be clear, neither of those are perfect either. But I suspect the real reason no politician wants to go for them is because they're more expensive.
+100.
Also, the “envy of the world” schtick hasn’t been true since about 1955.
The UK spends a decent amount less as a percentage of GDP than its European peers, and Canada, but - curiously - more than Australia and NZ.
Parliament has various levers it can attempt to pull to *encourage* a PM to seek an extension and to make the government's life difficult if we leave without a deal. Whether these would pass and whether they would work as incentives is up for debate. But to suggest there is nothing they can do is probably wrong.
It's only a week or two since certain Leavers were getting excited about the prospects of proroguing parliament; funnily enough we're not hearing so much about that now.
If Parliament wants to stop us leaving on 31st October they need to order the government to revoke. Nothing else is likely, let alone guaranteed, to work.
That appears to be where we're headed right now, in my view.
To be clear, I don't think that's a good thing.
I don't think either of these are good options but it is getting increasingly difficult to see how the "compromise" of May's deal with added fig leaves even gets back on the table.
I see no reason why it should. Parliament had 3 chances to pass that already and now opponents of the deal have taken charge.
If the EU wants to prevent no deal they can give a better deal. No fig leaves, a genuine improvement. Otherwise I think we are heavily odds-on now to have no deal on 31 October. About time too.
Why should they? No deal is bad for everyone but particularly us (obviously). It is not the end of the world and we would get over it but it is an unnecessary injury. And our relationship with the EU would be a lot more difficult over the next 10 years. Equally unnecessary and unhelpful.
The MPs who voted against the deal, whether remainers elected to honour the vote or leavers who thought it was a compromise too far are all a disgrace. They completely failed to act in the national interest and deserve nothing but contempt.
Despite people's beliefs that it is, the US system is most definitely not a free market system.
There are a lot of laws and regulations designed to please vested interests. In particular a number of laws designed to prevent drugs prices from coming down. The system there is completely broken.
Efficient is not a word that can be used to describe American healthcare at all.
One of the problems with debates over healthcare funding in this country is that people always draw a false dichotomy between our system, on the one hand, and the American system on the other.
Nobody with a brain would pick the American system, because it's (a) rubbish (b) expensive (c) corrupt as hell.
But nobody ever seems to be able to say why the NHS is so superior to the German or Dutch systems.* There's sometimes an almost fetishistic attachment to it that's just embarrassing.
*To be clear, neither of those are perfect either. But I suspect the real reason no politician wants to go for them is because they're more expensive.
Minor quibble - the US system provides probably the best healthcare in the world, if you're really rich.
The medical care is excellent.
The healthcare system I judge partly on the level of its coverage.
On that basis, I maintain the US healthcare system is rubbish.
There is an interview with Sam Cam in last Sunday's Times magazine. She is photographed (with her sister) in the Cameron's London flat/house. On the bookshelf behind her is the title:
"Why nations fail"
I wonder if Call Me Dave still thinks Brexit was “a mistake, not a disaster”.
No wonder he is keeping a low profile.
Wise Prime Ministers do.
One of the reasons Heath became such a joke is because he continued to prat around as a sore loser.
Thatcher's ongoing meddling in Tory politics consolidated people's dislike of her, and damaged the Tory party very badly.
Major and Brown, by contrast, who left with low approval ratings and everyone was glad to see them leave, are now looked back on with something akin to fond nostalgia.
Bozo is doing his best to make people pine for Mrs M, last heard of in the Italian Lakes.
I'm certainly very nervous. All this talk of closing down private health insurance and going fully public is going to cost them with swing voters I think.
Not necessarily. A lot of Americans are finding their private insurance to be increasingly unaffordable, and all "Medicare for all" which the Dem candidate next year will be running on will include the same.
And what about the cost? Ultimately, if you extend free healthcare further to poor Americans then middle class Americans will surely have to pay more (either directly or indirectly).
It's like the social care debate over here (remember Gordon Brown's "death tax")
In 2016 the USA spent 17% of its GDP on healthcare (source: World Bank) yet 27 million Americans has no health insurance of any kind (source: KFF) - and since Trump came to office that number has climbed steadily.
In the same year, the UK spent 9.76% of GDP on healthcare and had universal coverage.
I think it is fair to say there is room for improvement in the efficiency of US spending. Indeed not that long ago there was a suggestion an NHS would be needed to save them money because their system is simply unaffordable.
Despite people's beliefs that it is, the US system is most definitely not a free market system.
There are a lot of laws and regulations designed to please vested interests. In particular a number of laws designed to prevent drugs prices from coming down. The system there is completely broken.
Efficient is not a word that can be used to describe American healthcare at all.
You’re just a shill for “socialised medicine”.
America's system is the worst of all worlds. It is highly regulated nonsense.
Either a proper socialised medicine, or a great liberalisation and deregulation to get a proper free market solution would be a big improvement on the current mess.
The most remarkable factoid is that the state-funded bits of the US system (mostly for veterans and medicare/aid) actually cost more tax $ per head than the our NHS covering everybody.
One of the major drivers of cost in the US healthcare system is malpractice suits. Why are there malpractice suits? Because the victims of malpractice need a mechanism to cover their ongoing healthcare costs...
Parliament has various levers it can attempt to pull to *encourage* a PM to seek an extension and to make the government's life difficult if we leave without a deal. Whether these would pass and whether they would work as incentives is up for debate. But to suggest there is nothing they can do is probably wrong.
It's only a week or two since certain Leavers were getting excited about the prospects of proroguing parliament; funnily enough we're not hearing so much about that now.
If Parliament wants to stop us leaving on 31st October they need to order the government to revoke. Nothing else is likely, let alone guaranteed, to work.
That appears to be where we're headed right now, in my view.
To be clear, I don't think that's a good thing.
I don't think either of these are good options but it is getting increasingly difficult to see how the "compromise" of May's deal with added fig leaves even gets back on the table.
The deal has been dead since last December. By far Theresa May's most disgraceful decision was to neither resign nor seek alternative ways forward. She bears a heavy responsibility for the current impasse.
Something we can agree on Alastair. But I have a faint hope that the EU will give Boris some token that allows him to bring the deal back to the House one more time. It is by far the best option available to us and those who voted against it should be ashamed of themselves.
Why should Boris be content with a token?
If the EU wants to avoid no deal they can give us a real change. If they don't, so be it.
Oh come on, you can support Boris for being on your side, but you don't really think he's a true believer do you?
There is an interview with Sam Cam in last Sunday's Times magazine. She is photographed (with her sister) in the Cameron's London flat/house. On the bookshelf behind her is the title:
"Why nations fail"
I wonder if Call Me Dave still thinks Brexit was “a mistake, not a disaster”.
No wonder he is keeping a low profile.
Wise Prime Ministers do.
One of the reasons Heath became such a joke is because he continued to prat around as a sore loser.
Thatcher's ongoing meddling in Tory politics consolidated people's dislike of her, and damaged the Tory party very badly.
Major and Brown, by contrast, who left with low approval ratings and everyone was glad to see them leave, are now looked back on with something akin to fond nostalgia.
Bozo is doing his best to make people pine for Mrs M, last heard of in the Italian Lakes.
Despite people's beliefs that it is, the US system is most definitely not a free market system.
There are a lot of laws and regulations designed to please vested interests. In particular a number of laws designed to prevent drugs prices from coming down. The system there is completely broken.
Efficient is not a word that can be used to describe American healthcare at all.
One of the problems with debates over healthcare funding in this country is that people always draw a false dichotomy between our system, on the one hand, and the American system on the other.
Nobody with a brain would pick the American system, because it's (a) rubbish (b) expensive (c) corrupt as hell.
But nobody ever seems to be able to say why the NHS is so superior to the German or Dutch systems.* There's sometimes an almost fetishistic attachment to it that's just embarrassing.
*To be clear, neither of those are perfect either. But I suspect the real reason no politician wants to go for them is because they're more expensive.
+100.
Also, the “envy of the world” schtick hasn’t been true since about 1955.
The UK spends a decent amount less as a percentage of GDP than its European peers, and Canada, but - curiously - more than Australia and NZ.
But they have flying doctors. I used to watch them on TV when I was young.
Patel was banging on about that in her constituency letter. Don't know how the strawberry farmers in the east of her constituency feel about that, of course!
Despite people's beliefs that it is, the US system is most definitely not a free market system.
There are a lot of laws and regulations designed to please vested interests. In particular a number of laws designed to prevent drugs prices from coming down. The system there is completely broken.
Efficient is not a word that can be used to describe American healthcare at all.
One of the problems with debates over healthcare funding in this country is that people always draw a false dichotomy between our system, on the one hand, and the American system on the other.
Nobody with a brain would pick the American system, because it's (a) rubbish (b) expensive (c) corrupt as hell.
But nobody ever seems to be able to say why the NHS is so superior to the German or Dutch systems.* There's sometimes an almost fetishistic attachment to it that's just embarrassing.
*To be clear, neither of those are perfect either. But I suspect the real reason no politician wants to go for them is because they're more expensive.
+100.
Also, the “envy of the world” schtick hasn’t been true since about 1955.
The UK spends a decent amount less as a percentage of GDP than its European peers, and Canada, but - curiously - more than Australia and NZ.
When I lived in Australia one of the first policies the newly-elected Liberal [aka Conservative] governments after getting elected in 1996 was implement a rebate through the tax system for taking out private medical insurance, despite the fact that Australia has universal coverage through Medicare.
The logic was that it will reduce the stress on Medicare and the government will spend less paying a bit of a rebate on insurance than it will the full coverage and so the healthcare budget will go further on those that actually need it.
So Australia's system is one of universal healthcare like here, but due to the tax system half the country still has private insurance anyway and the universal healthcare spending goes on those who truly need it.
Which makes me laugh when you compare it to here when people look to ban private education etc which would mean the government paying more to pay for the education of those who really don't need the government paying for it.
It goes against the philosophies of many on the left here, but Australia's system is far more progressive.
Despite people's beliefs that it is, the US system is most definitely not a free market system.
There are a lot of laws and regulations designed to please vested interests. In particular a number of laws designed to prevent drugs prices from coming down. The system there is completely broken.
Efficient is not a word that can be used to describe American healthcare at all.
One of the problems with debates over healthcare funding in this country is that people always draw a false dichotomy between our system, on the one hand, and the American system on the other.
Nobody with a brain would pick the American system, because it's (a) rubbish (b) expensive (c) corrupt as hell.
But nobody ever seems to be able to say why the NHS is so superior to the German or Dutch systems.* There's sometimes an almost fetishistic attachment to it that's just embarrassing.
*To be clear, neither of those are perfect either. But I suspect the real reason no politician wants to go for them is because they're more expensive.
+100.
Also, the “envy of the world” schtick hasn’t been true since about 1955.
The UK spends a decent amount less as a percentage of GDP than its European peers, and Canada, but - curiously - more than Australia and NZ.
But they have flying doctors. I used to watch them on TV when I was young.
It was a bit of a con though. They used planes every time I saw them.
The Dems need to pull their finger out because at the moment Trump is heading for another election victory IMO.
I'm certainly very nervous. All this talk of closing down private health insurance and going fully public is going to cost them with swing voters I think.
Not necessarily. A lot of Americans are finding their private insurance to be increasingly unaffordable, and all the GOP can offer is bringing back junk insurance that is affordable but gives practically no benefit. Existing Medicare for over-65s allows for private sector "top-up" plans and I'd bet the final proposal for "Medicare for all" which the Dem candidate next year will be running on will include the same.
And what about the cost? Ultimately, if you extend free healthcare further to poor Americans then middle class Americans will surely have to pay more (either directly or indirectly).
It's like the social care debate over here (remember Gordon Brown's "death tax")
America already spends far more public money per capita on healthcare than the UK does (add on private insurance and the numbers go even crazier) . Their system is curre tly setup to be massively inefficient.
Introducing a genuine public option would open up economies of scale
There is an interview with Sam Cam in last Sunday's Times magazine. She is photographed (with her sister) in the Cameron's London flat/house. On the bookshelf behind her is the title:
"Why nations fail"
I wonder if Call Me Dave still thinks Brexit was “a mistake, not a disaster”.
No wonder he is keeping a low profile.
Wise Prime Ministers do.
One of the reasons Heath became such a joke is because he continued to prat around as a sore loser.
Thatcher's ongoing meddling in Tory politics consolidated people's dislike of her, and damaged the Tory party very badly.
Major and Brown, by contrast, who left with low approval ratings and everyone was glad to see them leave, are now looked back on with something akin to fond nostalgia.
Bozo is doing his best to make people pine for Mrs M, last heard of in the Italian Lakes.
IN the Italian lakes??!!!!
Bloody hell...
To be fair she was absolutely certain that she would be able to walk across the surface until she tried it.
Despite people's beliefs that it is, the US system is most definitely not a free market system.
There are a lot of laws and regulations designed to please vested interests. In particular a number of laws designed to prevent drugs prices from coming down. The system there is completely broken.
Efficient is not a word that can be used to describe American healthcare at all.
One of the problems with debates over healthcare funding in this country is that people always draw a false dichotomy between our system, on the one hand, and the American system on the other.
Nobody with a brain would pick the American system, because it's (a) rubbish (b) expensive (c) corrupt as hell.
But nobody ever seems to be able to say why the NHS is so superior to the German or Dutch systems.* There's sometimes an almost fetishistic attachment to it that's just embarrassing.
*To be clear, neither of those are perfect either. But I suspect the real reason no politician wants to go for them is because they're more expensive.
+100.
Also, the “envy of the world” schtick hasn’t been true since about 1955.
The UK spends a decent amount less as a percentage of GDP than its European peers, and Canada, but - curiously - more than Australia and NZ.
But they have flying doctors. I used to watch them on TV when I was young.
It was a bit of a con though. They used planes every time I saw them.
They needed a Grant, because only angels have wings.
Despite people's beliefs that it is, the US system is most definitely not a free market system.
There are a lot of laws and regulations designed to please vested interests. In particular a number of laws designed to prevent drugs prices from coming down. The system there is completely broken.
Efficient is not a word that can be used to describe American healthcare at all.
One of the problems with debates over healthcare funding in this country is that people always draw a false dichotomy between our system, on the one hand, and the American system on the other.
Nobody with a brain would pick the American system, because it's (a) rubbish (b) expensive (c) corrupt as hell.
But nobody ever seems to be able to say why the NHS is so superior to the German or Dutch systems.* There's sometimes an almost fetishistic attachment to it that's just embarrassing.
*To be clear, neither of those are perfect either. But I suspect the real reason no politician wants to go for them is because they're more expensive.
+100.
Also, the “envy of the world” schtick hasn’t been true since about 1955.
The UK spends a decent amount less as a percentage of GDP than its European peers, and Canada, but - curiously - more than Australia and NZ.
When I lived in Australia one of the first policies the newly-elected Liberal [aka Conservative] governments after getting elected in 1996 was implement a rebate through the tax system for taking out private medical insurance, despite the fact that Australia has universal coverage through Medicare.
The logic was that it will reduce the stress on Medicare and the government will spend less paying a bit of a rebate on insurance than it will the full coverage and so the healthcare budget will go further on those that actually need it.
So Australia's system is one of universal healthcare like here, but due to the tax system half the country still has private insurance anyway and the universal healthcare spending goes on those who truly need it.
Which makes me laugh when you compare it to here when people look to ban private education etc which would mean the government paying more to pay for the education of those who really don't need the government paying for it.
It goes against the philosophies of many on the left here, but Australia's system is far more progressive.
Aren’t we in fact heading towards this? I wonder what percentage of the UK popn has BUPA etc. The difference is of course there is no rebate.
There are more ads for private GP type services on the tube, too.
Patel was banging on about that in her constituency letter. Don't know how the strawberry farmers in the east of her constituency feel about that, of course!
If only there were something we could do about the dimmest and worst in high places.
I don't think either of these are good options but it is getting increasingly difficult to see how the "compromise" of May's deal with added fig leaves even gets back on the table.
I see no reason why it should. Parliament had 3 chances to pass that already and now opponents of the deal have taken charge.
If the EU wants to prevent no deal they can give a better deal. No fig leaves, a genuine improvement. Otherwise I think we are heavily odds-on now to have no deal on 31 October. About time too.
Why should they? No deal is bad for everyone but particularly us (obviously). It is not the end of the world and we would get over it but it is an unnecessary injury. And our relationship with the EU would be a lot more difficult over the next 10 years. Equally unnecessary and unhelpful.
The MPs who voted against the deal, whether remainers elected to honour the vote or leavers who thought it was a compromise too far are all a disgrace. They completely failed to act in the national interest and deserve nothing but contempt.
Whether it hurts us more or less is immaterial. If we're prepared to take it on then they have two choices - either they change course, or they accept the crash.
Its like if I'm driving down the road and see someone stood in the middle of the road - if I crash into them it will do more damage to them than me. But if I want to avoid the crash I will take evasive action still.
The time for a figleaf was when May was in charge, its too little, too late now. Real change or a clean exit - and they can decide between those.
Despite people's beliefs that it is, the US system is most definitely not a free market system.
There are a lot of laws and regulations designed to please vested interests. In particular a number of laws designed to prevent drugs prices from coming down. The system there is completely broken.
Efficient is not a word that can be used to describe American healthcare at all.
One of the problems with debates over healthcare funding in this country is that people always draw a false dichotomy between our system, on the one hand, and the American system on the other.
Nobody with a brain would pick the American system, because it's (a) rubbish (b) expensive (c) corrupt as hell.
But nobody ever seems to be able to say why the NHS is so superior to the German or Dutch systems.* There's sometimes an almost fetishistic attachment to it that's just embarrassing.
*To be clear, neither of those are perfect either. But I suspect the real reason no politician wants to go for them is because they're more expensive.
+100.
Also, the “envy of the world” schtick hasn’t been true since about 1955.
The UK spends a decent amount less as a percentage of GDP than its European peers, and Canada, but - curiously - more than Australia and NZ.
But they have flying doctors. I used to watch them on TV when I was young.
It was a bit of a con though. They used planes every time I saw them.
They needed a Grant, because only angels have wings.
I don't think either of these are good options but it is getting increasingly difficult to see how the "compromise" of May's deal with added fig leaves even gets back on the table.
I see no reason why it should. Parliament had 3 chances to pass that already and now opponents of the deal have taken charge.
If the EU wants to prevent no deal they can give a better deal. No fig leaves, a genuine improvement. Otherwise I think we are heavily odds-on now to have no deal on 31 October. About time too.
Why should they? No deal is bad for everyone but particularly us (obviously). It is not the end of the world and we would get over it but it is an unnecessary injury. And our relationship with the EU would be a lot more difficult over the next 10 years. Equally unnecessary and unhelpful.
The MPs who voted against the deal, whether remainers elected to honour the vote or leavers who thought it was a compromise too far are all a disgrace. They completely failed to act in the national interest and deserve nothing but contempt.
Whether it hurts us more or less is immaterial. If we're prepared to take it on then they have two choices - either they change course, or they accept the crash.
Its like if I'm driving down the road and see someone stood in the middle of the road - if I crash into them it will do more damage to them than me. But if I want to avoid the crash I will take evasive action still.
The time for a figleaf was when May was in charge, its too little, too late now. Real change or a clean exit - and they can decide between those.
So we hurt ourselves just to show we can? I mean, really?
When I lived in Australia one of the first policies the newly-elected Liberal [aka Conservative] governments after getting elected in 1996 was implement a rebate through the tax system for taking out private medical insurance, despite the fact that Australia has universal coverage through Medicare.
The logic was that it will reduce the stress on Medicare and the government will spend less paying a bit of a rebate on insurance than it will the full coverage and so the healthcare budget will go further on those that actually need it.
So Australia's system is one of universal healthcare like here, but due to the tax system half the country still has private insurance anyway and the universal healthcare spending goes on those who truly need it.
Which makes me laugh when you compare it to here when people look to ban private education etc which would mean the government paying more to pay for the education of those who really don't need the government paying for it.
It goes against the philosophies of many on the left here, but Australia's system is far more progressive.
Aren’t we in fact heading towards this? I wonder what percentage of the UK popn has BUPA etc. The difference is of course there is no rebate.
There are more ads for private GP type services on the tube, too.
Can you imagine the outrage that would be sparked if in 2010 or 2015 the Tories/Coalition had said they would offer tax rebates for anyone who signs up to BUPA etc
Doing so would probably save the NHS a fortune. But the idea of doing so seems to be far too toxic currently.
When I lived in Australia one of the first policies the newly-elected Liberal [aka Conservative] governments after getting elected in 1996 was implement a rebate through the tax system for taking out private medical insurance, despite the fact that Australia has universal coverage through Medicare.
The logic was that it will reduce the stress on Medicare and the government will spend less paying a bit of a rebate on insurance than it will the full coverage and so the healthcare budget will go further on those that actually need it.
So Australia's system is one of universal healthcare like here, but due to the tax system half the country still has private insurance anyway and the universal healthcare spending goes on those who truly need it.
Which makes me laugh when you compare it to here when people look to ban private education etc which would mean the government paying more to pay for the education of those who really don't need the government paying for it.
It goes against the philosophies of many on the left here, but Australia's system is far more progressive.
Aren’t we in fact heading towards this? I wonder what percentage of the UK popn has BUPA etc. The difference is of course there is no rebate.
There are more ads for private GP type services on the tube, too.
Can you imagine the outrage that would be sparked if in 2010 or 2015 the Tories/Coalition had said they would offer tax rebates for anyone who signs up to BUPA etc
Doing so would probably save the NHS a fortune. But the idea of doing so seems to be far too toxic currently.
Bit late for me but tax relief on school fees, even capped at what I was saving the State by educating my kids privately, would have been nice.
I don't think either of these are good options but it is getting increasingly difficult to see how the "compromise" of May's deal with added fig leaves even gets back on the table.
I see no reason why it should. Parliament had 3 chances to pass that already and now opponents of the deal have taken charge.
If the EU wants to prevent no deal they can give a better deal. No fig leaves, a genuine improvement. Otherwise I think we are heavily odds-on now to have no deal on 31 October. About time too.
Why should they? No deal is bad for everyone but particularly us (obviously). It is not the end of the world and we would get over it but it is an unnecessary injury. And our relationship with the EU would be a lot more difficult over the next 10 years. Equally unnecessary and unhelpful.
The MPs who voted against the deal, whether remainers elected to honour the vote or leavers who thought it was a compromise too far are all a disgrace. They completely failed to act in the national interest and deserve nothing but contempt.
Whether it hurts us more or less is immaterial. If we're prepared to take it on then they have two choices - either they change course, or they accept the crash.
Its like if I'm driving down the road and see someone stood in the middle of the road - if I crash into them it will do more damage to them than me. But if I want to avoid the crash I will take evasive action still.
The time for a figleaf was when May was in charge, its too little, too late now. Real change or a clean exit - and they can decide between those.
So we hurt ourselves just to show we can? I mean, really?
No we take a clean exit because we can and its the only option available to us that respects our wishes. If there is hurt so be it. Exercising hurts but the motto there is no pain, no gain.
Despite people's beliefs that it is, the US system is most definitely not a free market system.
There are a lot of laws and regulations designed to please vested interests. In particular a number of laws designed to prevent drugs prices from coming down. The system there is completely broken.
Efficient is not a word that can be used to describe American healthcare at all.
One of the problems with debates over healthcare funding in this country is that people always draw a false dichotomy between our system, on the one hand, and the American system on the other.
Nobody with a brain would pick the American system, because it's (a) rubbish (b) expensive (c) corrupt as hell.
But nobody ever seems to be able to say why the NHS is so superior to the German or Dutch systems.* There's sometimes an almost fetishistic attachment to it that's just embarrassing.
*To be clear, neither of those are perfect either. But I suspect the real reason no politician wants to go for them is because they're more expensive.
+100.
Also, the “envy of the world” schtick hasn’t been true since about 1955.
The UK spends a decent amount less as a percentage of GDP than its European peers, and Canada, but - curiously - more than Australia and NZ.
But they have flying doctors. I used to watch them on TV when I was young.
It was a bit of a con though. They used planes every time I saw them.
They needed a Grant, because only angels have wings.
Despite people's beliefs that it is, the US system is most definitely not a free market system.
There are a lot of laws and regulations designed to please vested interests. In particular a number of laws designed to prevent drugs prices from coming down. The system there is completely broken.
Efficient is not a word that can be used to describe American healthcare at all.
One of the problems with debates over healthcare funding in this country is that people always draw a false dichotomy between our system, on the one hand, and the American system on the other.
Nobody with a brain would pick the American system, because it's (a) rubbish (b) expensive (c) corrupt as hell.
But nobody ever seems to be able to say why the NHS is so superior to the German or Dutch systems.* There's sometimes an almost fetishistic attachment to it that's just embarrassing.
*To be clear, neither of those are perfect either. But I suspect the real reason no politician wants to go for them is because they're more expensive.
+100.
Also, the “envy of the world” schtick hasn’t been true since about 1955.
The UK spends a decent amount less as a percentage of GDP than its European peers, and Canada, but - curiously - more than Australia and NZ.
But they have flying doctors. I used to watch them on TV when I was young.
It was a bit of a con though. They used planes every time I saw them.
They needed a Grant, because only angels have wings.
When I lived in Australia one of the first policies the newly-elected Liberal [aka Conservative] governments after getting elected in 1996 was implement a rebate through the tax system for taking out private medical insurance, despite the fact that Australia has universal coverage through Medicare.
The logic was that it will reduce the stress on Medicare and the government will spend less paying a bit of a rebate on insurance than it will the full coverage and so the healthcare budget will go further on those that actually need it.
So Australia's system is one of universal healthcare like here, but due to the tax system half the country still has private insurance anyway and the universal healthcare spending goes on those who truly need it.
Which makes me laugh when you compare it to here when people look to ban private education etc which would mean the government paying more to pay for the education of those who really don't need the government paying for it.
It goes against the philosophies of many on the left here, but Australia's system is far more progressive.
Aren’t we in fact heading towards this? I wonder what percentage of the UK popn has BUPA etc. The difference is of course there is no rebate.
There are more ads for private GP type services on the tube, too.
Can you imagine the outrage that would be sparked if in 2010 or 2015 the Tories/Coalition had said they would offer tax rebates for anyone who signs up to BUPA etc
Doing so would probably save the NHS a fortune. But the idea of doing so seems to be far too toxic currently.
Bit late for me but tax relief on school fees, even capped at what I was saving the State by educating my kids privately, would have been nice.
Tax relief on school fees, even capped at say 66% of what you were saving the State, would no doubt have been nice for you and would have saved the State money. Spend the education budget on people who need it.
We understand that with welfare, I don't know why it is so alien for other areas.
Despite people's beliefs that it is, the US system is most definitely not a free market system.
There are a lot of laws and regulations designed to please vested interests. In particular a number of laws designed to prevent drugs prices from coming down. The system there is completely broken.
Efficient is not a word that can be used to describe American healthcare at all.
One of the problems with debates over healthcare funding in this country is that people always draw a false dichotomy between our system, on the one hand, and the American system on the other.
Nobody with a brain would pick the American system, because it's (a) rubbish (b) expensive (c) corrupt as hell.
But nobody ever seems to be able to say why the NHS is so superior to the German or Dutch systems.* There's sometimes an almost fetishistic attachment to it that's just embarrassing.
*To be clear, neither of those are perfect either. But I suspect the real reason no politician wants to go for them is because they're more expensive.
+100.
Also, the “envy of the world” schtick hasn’t been true since about 1955.
The UK spends a decent amount less as a percentage of GDP than its European peers, and Canada, but - curiously - more than Australia and NZ.
But they have flying doctors. I used to watch them on TV when I was young.
It was a bit of a con though. They used planes every time I saw them.
They needed a Grant, because only angels have wings.
I don't think either of these are good options but it is getting increasingly difficult to see how the "compromise" of May's deal with added fig leaves even gets back on the table.
I see no reason why it should. Parliament had 3 chances to pass that already and now opponents of the deal have taken charge.
If the EU wants to prevent no deal they can give a better deal. No fig leaves, a genuine improvement. Otherwise I think we are heavily odds-on now to have no deal on 31 October. About time too.
Why should they? No deal is bad for everyone but particularly us (obviously). It is not the end of the world and we would get over it but it is an unnecessary injury. And our relationship with the EU would be a lot more difficult over the next 10 years. Equally unnecessary and unhelpful.
The MPs who voted against the deal, whether remainers elected to honour the vote or leavers who thought it was a compromise too far are all a disgrace. They completely failed to act in the national interest and deserve nothing but contempt.
Whether it hurts us more or less is immaterial. If we're prepared to take it on then they have two choices - either they change course, or they accept the crash.
Its like if I'm driving down the road and see someone stood in the middle of the road - if I crash into them it will do more damage to them than me. But if I want to avoid the crash I will take evasive action still.
The time for a figleaf was when May was in charge, its too little, too late now. Real change or a clean exit - and they can decide between those.
So we hurt ourselves just to show we can? I mean, really?
No we take a clean exit because we can and its the only option available to us that respects our wishes. If there is hurt so be it. Exercising hurts but the motto there is no pain, no gain.
I don’t know why you keep needed reminding however: there is no majority in either parliament or the electorate for no deal.
It is not our wishes. Not even close.
Also, there is no ‘gain’ from Brexit. The best case scenario is that nothing changes from what we already have.
I don't think either of these are good options but it is getting increasingly difficult to see how the "compromise" of May's deal with added fig leaves even gets back on the table.
I see no reason why it should. Parliament had 3 chances to pass that already and now opponents of the deal have taken charge.
If the EU wants to prevent no deal they can give a better deal. No fig leaves, a genuine improvement. Otherwise I think we are heavily odds-on now to have no deal on 31 October. About time too.
Why should they? No deal is bad for everyone but particularly us (obviously). It is not the end of the world and we would get over it but it is an unnecessary injury. And our relationship with the EU would be a lot more difficult over the next 10 years. Equally unnecessary and unhelpful.
The MPs who voted against the deal, whether remainers elected to honour the vote or leavers who thought it was a compromise too far are all a disgrace. They completely failed to act in the national interest and deserve nothing but contempt.
Whether it hurts us more or less is immaterial. If we're prepared to take it on then they have two choices - either they change course, or they accept the crash.
Its like if I'm driving down the road and see someone stood in the middle of the road - if I crash into them it will do more damage to them than me. But if I want to avoid the crash I will take evasive action still.
The time for a figleaf was when May was in charge, its too little, too late now. Real change or a clean exit - and they can decide between those.
So we hurt ourselves just to show we can? I mean, really?
No we take a clean exit because we can and its the only option available to us that respects our wishes. If there is hurt so be it. Exercising hurts but the motto there is no pain, no gain.
So in your clean exit can you tell me how the current proposed ‘clean brexit’ tariff schedule will impact various aspects of UK life?
Also, the “envy of the world” schtick hasn’t been true since about 1955.
The UK spends a decent amount less as a percentage of GDP than its European peers, and Canada, but - curiously - more than Australia and NZ.
When I lived in Australia one of the first policies the newly-elected Liberal [aka Conservative] governments after getting elected in 1996 was implement a rebate through the tax system for taking out private medical insurance, despite the fact that Australia has universal coverage through Medicare.
The logic was that it will reduce the stress on Medicare and the government will spend less paying a bit of a rebate on insurance than it will the full coverage and so the healthcare budget will go further on those that actually need it.
So Australia's system is one of universal healthcare like here, but due to the tax system half the country still has private insurance anyway and the universal healthcare spending goes on those who truly need it.
Which makes me laugh when you compare it to here when people look to ban private education etc which would mean the government paying more to pay for the education of those who really don't need the government paying for it.
It goes against the philosophies of many on the left here, but Australia's system is far more progressive.
Aren’t we in fact heading towards this? I wonder what percentage of the UK popn has BUPA etc. The difference is of course there is no rebate.
There are more ads for private GP type services on the tube, too.
I think Michael Howard dabbled in something similar here with the 'Patient's Passport'. Politically it went down like a lead balloon - the taxpayer subsidising the wealthy's private health care - and was ditched.
Patel was banging on about that in her constituency letter. Don't know how the strawberry farmers in the east of her constituency feel about that, of course!
Its good to see Boris and Patel are more liberal than May, or even Cameron and May.
The appointment of Patel was the one concerning thing from the cabinet but this is simply excellent news and it seems the idea of Patel as some extreme authoritarian ogre is a myth. Good.
I don't think either of these are good options but it is getting increasingly difficult to see how the "compromise" of May's deal with added fig leaves even gets back on the table.
I see no reason why it should. Parliament had 3 chances to pass that already and now opponents of the deal have taken charge.
If the EU wants to prevent no deal they can give a better deal. No fig leaves, a genuine improvement. Otherwise I think we are heavily odds-on now to have no deal on 31 October. About time too.
Why should they? No deal is bad for everyone but particularly us (obviously). It is not the end of the world and we would get over it but it is an unnecessary injury. And our relationship with the EU would be a lot more difficult over the next 10 years. Equally unnecessary and unhelpful.
The MPs who voted against the deal, whether remainers elected to honour the vote or leavers who thought it was a compromise too far are all a disgrace. They completely failed to act in the national interest and deserve nothing but contempt.
Whether it hurts us more or less is immaterial. If we're prepared to take it on then they have two choices - either they change course, or they accept the crash.
Its like if I'm driving down the road and see someone stood in the middle of the road - if I crash into them it will do more damage to them than me. But if I want to avoid the crash I will take evasive action still.
The time for a figleaf was when May was in charge, its too little, too late now. Real change or a clean exit - and they can decide between those.
So we hurt ourselves just to show we can? I mean, really?
No we take a clean exit because we can and its the only option available to us that respects our wishes. If there is hurt so be it. Exercising hurts but the motto there is no pain, no gain.
I am sorry Philip but that is just nuts. It is delusional to think that we would have a "clean exit". I have argued the case that the consequences of departure with or without a deal are being grossly overstated and still believe that but to avoid perfectly sensible arrangements with our major trading partners giving us many of the advantages of membership without all the political guff and with minimal cost is, well, nuts.
That would be the lowest number of seats won by Labour since 1935 (coupled with the lowest Labour voteshare since 1918), appalling result for Corbyn Labour but the best LD result since 2005 (as well as a narrow Tory majority and SNP back close to 2015 level)
Flavible have BXP winning Thurrock and Hartlepool, and a striking string of LibDem gains through south, west and central London.
A big difference from UNS is their model putting the LibDems in play against Labour in such seats - whereas on straight swing the LibDem prospects are mostly Tory.
Yup, I think Emily Thornberry could be the LD scalp of the night
So you see the merit of Flavible now?
They are at least attempting to forecast the results that will 'surprise' next time (compared to expectations based on conventional swing) - just as Mansfield, Canterbury and Kensington did last time. It's quite clear the next election won't be a straight swing election.
Maybe but even Electoral Calculus has Thornberry losing her seat to the LDs on today's Yougov
A focus on the highest skilled migrants the country needs, not more low skilled workers reducing the wages of the low paid, what most Leave voters voted for
I don't think either of these are good options but it is getting increasingly difficult to see how the "compromise" of May's deal with added fig leaves even gets back on the table.
I see no reason why it should. Parliament had 3 chances to pass that already and now opponents of the deal have taken charge.
If the EU wants to prevent no deal they can give a better deal. No fig leaves, a genuine improvement. Otherwise I think we are heavily odds-on now to have no deal on 31 October. About time too.
Why should they? No deal is bad for everyone but particularly us (obviously). It is not the end of the world and we would get over it but it is an unnecessary injury. And our relationship with the EU would be a lot more difficult over the next 10 years. Equally unnecessary and unhelpful.
The MPs who voted against the deal, whether remainers elected to honour the vote or leavers who thought it was a compromise too far are all a disgrace. They completely failed to act in the national interest and deserve nothing but contempt.
Whether it hurts us more or less is immaterial. If we're prepared to take it on then they have two choices - either they change course, or they accept the crash.
Its like if I'm driving down the road and see someone stood in the middle of the road - if I crash into them it will do more damage to them than me. But if I want to avoid the crash I will take evasive action still.
The time for a figleaf was when May was in charge, its too little, too late now. Real change or a clean exit - and they can decide between those.
So we hurt ourselves just to show we can? I mean, really?
No we take a clean exit because we can and its the only option available to us that respects our wishes. If there is hurt so be it. Exercising hurts but the motto there is no pain, no gain.
Also, there is no ‘gain’ from Brexit. The best case scenario is that nothing changes from what we already have.
There is a gain from Brexit - we're saving 350 mil per week.
No we take a clean exit because we can and its the only option available to us that respects our wishes. If there is hurt so be it. Exercising hurts but the motto there is no pain, no gain.
I don’t know why you keep needed reminding however: there is no majority in either parliament or the electorate for no deal.
It is not our wishes. Not even close.
Also, there is no ‘gain’ from Brexit. The best case scenario is that nothing changes from what we already have.
I am not sure what you are struggling to understand, but saying there is no majority for no deal is absolutely meaningless and nuts. Either there is a deal, or there is not. It is binary.
We negotiated a deal, Parliament rejected it, that was Parliament preferring no deal over that deal. Unless a new deal arrives, and unless Parliament revokes or forces an extension, then Parliament has chosen no deal. Literally.
If I hand in notice for my job, then during my notice period reject every job offer I'm given, then at the end of the notice period say I'm shocked to be unemployed is that reasonable? I have literally got no job in that scenario, having rejected my old job and rejected job offers. It doesn't matter if I don't want to have no job, that is the default alternative to having one and to rejecting what is available.
I don't think either of these are good options but it is getting increasingly difficult to see how the "compromise" of May's deal with added fig leaves even gets back on the table.
I see no reason why it should. Parliament had 3 chances to pass that already and now opponents of the deal have taken charge.
If the EU wants to prevent no deal they can give a better deal. No fig leaves, a genuine improvement. Otherwise I think we are heavily odds-on now to have no deal on 31 October. About time too.
Why should they? No deal is bad for everyone but particularly us (obviously). It is not the end of the world and we would get over it but it is an unnecessary injury. And our relationship with the EU would be a lot more difficult over the next 10 years. Equally unnecessary and unhelpful.
The MPs who voted against the deal, whether remainers elected to honour the vote or leavers who thought it was a compromise too far are all a disgrace. They completely failed to act in the national interest and deserve nothing but contempt.
Whether it hurts us more or less is immaterial. If we're prepared to take it on then they have two choices - either they change course, or they accept the crash.
Its like if I'm driving down the road and see someone stood in the middle of the road - if I crash into them it will do more damage to them than me. But if I want to avoid the crash I will take evasive action still.
The time for a figleaf was when May was in charge, its too little, too late now. Real change or a clean exit - and they can decide between those.
So we hurt ourselves just to show we can? I mean, really?
No we take a clean exit because we can and its the only option available to us that respects our wishes. If there is hurt so be it. Exercising hurts but the motto there is no pain, no gain.
Also, there is no ‘gain’ from Brexit. The best case scenario is that nothing changes from what we already have.
There is a gain from Brexit - we're saving 350 mil per week.
I am sure the LDs will be grateful that a core Liberal voter such as yourself (voting LD in 2017 when the LDs got 7% and the Tories got 42%) will be voting LD again at the next general election so they can focus on the waverers in Hallam
No we take a clean exit because we can and its the only option available to us that respects our wishes. If there is hurt so be it. Exercising hurts but the motto there is no pain, no gain.
I don’t know why you keep needed reminding however: there is no majority in either parliament or the electorate for no deal.
It is not our wishes. Not even close.
Also, there is no ‘gain’ from Brexit. The best case scenario is that nothing changes from what we already have.
I am not sure what you are struggling to understand, but saying there is no majority for no deal is absolutely meaningless and nuts. Either there is a deal, or there is not. It is binary.
We negotiated a deal, Parliament rejected it, that was Parliament preferring no deal over that deal. Unless a new deal arrives, and unless Parliament revokes or forces an extension, then Parliament has chosen no deal. Literally.
If I hand in notice for my job, then during my notice period reject every job offer I'm given, then at the end of the notice period say I'm shocked to be unemployed is that reasonable? I have literally got no job in that scenario, having rejected my old job and rejected job offers. It doesn't matter if I don't want to have no job, that is the default alternative to having one and to rejecting what is available.
Your analogy is stupid.
No deal is not what we voted for, its not what we want.
I am sure the LDs will be grateful that a core voter such as yourself (voting LD in 2017 when the LDs got 7% and the Tories got 42%) will be voting LD again at the next general election
Unlike you, my vote in 2017 helped the Tories gain a seat from Labour.
You lose seats to the opponents of the Tories, I help them gain them.
Despite people's beliefs that it is, the US system is most definitely not a free market system.
There are a lot of laws and regulations designed to please vested interests. In particular a number of laws designed to prevent drugs prices from coming down. The system there is completely broken.
Efficient is not a word that can be used to describe American healthcare at all.
One of the problems with debates over healthcare funding in this country is that people always draw a false dichotomy between our system, on the one hand, and the American system on the other.
Nobody with a brain would pick the American system, because it's (a) rubbish (b) expensive (c) corrupt as hell.
But nobody ever seems to be able to say why the NHS is so superior to the German or Dutch systems.* There's sometimes an almost fetishistic attachment to it that's just embarrassing.
*To be clear, neither of those are perfect either. But I suspect the real reason no politician wants to go for them is because they're more expensive.
+100.
Also, the “envy of the world” schtick hasn’t been true since about 1955.
The UK spends a decent amount less as a percentage of GDP than its European peers, and Canada, but - curiously - more than Australia and NZ.
But they have flying doctors. I used to watch them on TV when I was young.
It was a bit of a con though. They used planes every time I saw them.
They needed a Grant, because only angels have wings.
I don't think either of these are good options but it is getting increasingly difficult to see how the "compromise" of May's deal with added fig leaves even gets back on the table.
I see no reason why it should. Parliament had 3 chances to pass that already and now opponents of the deal have taken charge.
If the EU wants to prevent no deal they can give a better deal. No fig leaves, a genuine improvement. Otherwise I think we are heavily odds-on now to have no deal on 31 October. About time too.
Why should they? No deal is bad for everyone but particularly us (obviously). It is not the end of the world and we would get over it but it is an unnecessary injury. And our relationship with the EU would be a lot more difficult over the next 10 years. Equally unnecessary and unhelpful.
The MPs who voted against the deal, whether remainers elected to honour the vote or leavers who thought it was a compromise too far are all a disgrace. They completely failed to act in the national interest and deserve nothing but contempt.
Whether it hurts us more or less is immaterial. If we're prepared to take it on then they have two choices - either they change course, or they accept the crash.
Its like if I'm driving down the road and see someone stood in the middle of the road - if I crash into them it will do more damage to them than me. But if I want to avoid the crash I will take evasive action still.
The time for a figleaf was when May was in charge, its too little, too late now. Real change or a clean exit - and they can decide between those.
So we hurt ourselves just to show we can? I mean, really?
No we take a clean exit because we can and its the only option available to us that respects our wishes. If there is hurt so be it. Exercising hurts but the motto there is no pain, no gain.
Also, there is no ‘gain’ from Brexit. The best case scenario is that nothing changes from what we already have.
There is a gain from Brexit - we're saving 350 mil per week.
I refer the honorable member to my previous answer
I don't think either of these are good options but it is getting increasingly difficult to see how the "compromise" of May's deal with added fig leaves even gets back on the table.
I see no reason why it should. Parliament had 3 chances to pass that already and now opponents of the deal have taken charge.
If the EU wants to prevent no deal they can give a better deal. No fig leaves, a genuine improvement. Otherwise I think we are heavily odds-on now to have no deal on 31 October. About time too.
Why should they? No deal is bad for everyone but particularly us (obviously). It is not the end of the world and we would get over it but it is an unnecessary injury. And our relationship with the EU would be a lot more difficult over the next 10 years. Equally unnecessary and unhelpful.
The MPs who voted against the deal, whether remainers elected to honour the vote or leavers who thought it was a compromise too far are all a disgrace. They completely failed to act in the national interest and deserve nothing but contempt.
Whether it hurts us more or less is immaterial. If we're prepared to take it on then they have two choices - either they change course, or they accept the crash.
Its like if I'm driving down the road and see someone stood in the middle of the road - if I crash into them it will do more damage to them than me. But if I want to avoid the crash I will take evasive action still.
The time for a figleaf was when May was in charge, its too little, too late now. Real change or a clean exit - and they can decide between those.
So we hurt ourselves just to show we can? I mean, really?
No we take a clean exit because we can and its the only option available to us that respects our wishes. If there is hurt so be it. Exercising hurts but the motto there is no pain, no gain.
Also, there is no ‘gain’ from Brexit. The best case scenario is that nothing changes from what we already have.
There is a gain from Brexit - we're saving 350 mil per week.
Excellent trolling. You really know how to press those buttons. Should have mentioned the bus though.
No we take a clean exit because we can and its the only option available to us that respects our wishes. If there is hurt so be it. Exercising hurts but the motto there is no pain, no gain.
I don’t know why you keep needed reminding however: there is no majority in either parliament or the electorate for no deal.
It is not our wishes. Not even close.
Also, there is no ‘gain’ from Brexit. The best case scenario is that nothing changes from what we already have.
I am not sure what you are struggling to understand, but saying there is no majority for no deal is absolutely meaningless and nuts. Either there is a deal, or there is not. It is binary.
We negotiated a deal, Parliament rejected it, that was Parliament preferring no deal over that deal. Unless a new deal arrives, and unless Parliament revokes or forces an extension, then Parliament has chosen no deal. Literally.
If I hand in notice for my job, then during my notice period reject every job offer I'm given, then at the end of the notice period say I'm shocked to be unemployed is that reasonable? I have literally got no job in that scenario, having rejected my old job and rejected job offers. It doesn't matter if I don't want to have no job, that is the default alternative to having one and to rejecting what is available.
Your analogy is stupid.
No deal is not what we voted for, its not what we want.
Therefore we revoke and stay in the EU.
It doesn't matter whether we voted for it or want it.
Either we accept a deal, or we have no deal.
I would like very much to win the lottery, but it doesn't mean I will, especially since I've never bought a lottery ticket. If Parliament doesn't accept a deal, it has no deal. It isn't a choice, it is the absence of a choice.
It also just shows that Boris and his incompetent mates haven't read the FTPA. If we need an election - someone else will be caretaker PM during the election..
I am sure the LDs will be grateful that a core voter such as yourself (voting LD in 2017 when the LDs got 7% and the Tories got 42%) will be voting LD again at the next general election
Unlike you, my vote in 2017 helped the Tories gain a seat from Labour.
You lose seats to the opponents of the Tories, I help them gain them.
Even in Hallam 23% voted for the Tory candidate Ian Walker at the last general election and we held the district seat the LDs were targeting in Epping this year
It also just shows that Boris and his incompetent mates haven't read the FTPA. If we need an election - someone else will be caretaker PM during the election..
How? It is far from clear what the mechanism for that would be unless a new government won a s2(5) resolution that Parliament had confidence in it. In which event there is no election.
It also just shows that Boris and his incompetent mates haven't read the FTPA. If we need an election - someone else will be caretaker PM during the election..
No you haven't read the FTPA.
If we need an election it will be because no government was able to gain Confidence which means Boris remains PM.
If someone else can form a government that can gain confidence then there won't be an election.
It also just shows that Boris and his incompetent mates haven't read the FTPA. If we need an election - someone else will be caretaker PM during the election..
No you haven't read the FTPA.
If we need an election it will be because no government was able to gain Confidence which means Boris remains PM.
If someone else can form a government that can gain confidence then there won't be an election.
Someone else can form a government, extend or revoke, then call an election.
Just arrived in Dublin's fair city and realised that is the last time I go through the EU passports channel there. Thanks, arseholes.
Ireland's pulling out of the CTA?
Ireland's membership of the CTA has no bearing to @Ishmael_Z 's point about going thru EU customs channels.
He said EU passport channel, not customs. I strongly imagine that in the event of Brexit, no-deal or with-deal, the Irish will just add "and UK" to their EU passport channel. As British passport holders will retain FoM with Ireland come what may, I just don't see why they wouldn't be channelled through the same line as the other countries that have FoM with Ireland.
I am sure the LDs will be grateful that a core voter such as yourself (voting LD in 2017 when the LDs got 7% and the Tories got 42%) will be voting LD again at the next general election
Unlike you, my vote in 2017 helped the Tories gain a seat from Labour.
You lose seats to the opponents of the Tories, I help them gain them.
Even in Hallam 23% voted for the Tory candidate Ian Walker at the last general election and we held the district seat the LDs were targeting in Epping this year
I correctly recognised the Tories weren't going to win Hallam so swapped my vote with a Lib Dem in North East Derbyshire to help the Tories gain the seat.
Tell me about your council seat you personally fought (and lost) in August 2017.
I am sure the LDs will be grateful that a core voter such as yourself (voting LD in 2017 when the LDs got 7% and the Tories got 42%) will be voting LD again at the next general election
Unlike you, my vote in 2017 helped the Tories gain a seat from Labour.
You lose seats to the opponents of the Tories, I help them gain them.
Even in Hallam 23% voted for the Tory candidate Ian Walker at the last general election and we held the district seat the LDs were targeting in Epping this year
No we take a clean exit because we can and its the only option available to us that respects our wishes. If there is hurt so be it. Exercising hurts but the motto there is no pain, no gain.
I am sorry Philip but that is just nuts. It is delusional to think that we would have a "clean exit". I have argued the case that the consequences of departure with or without a deal are being grossly overstated and still believe that but to avoid perfectly sensible arrangements with our major trading partners giving us many of the advantages of membership without all the political guff and with minimal cost is, well, nuts.
In an ideal world yes it is nuts, I completely and 100% agree.
But a deal offering "perfectly sensible arrangements with our major trading partners giving us many of the advantages of membership without all the political guff and with minimal cost" has never been on the table.
The backstop is political guff. It has to go. You may be OK with that guff - others are too - but for those of us who aren't which now includes the Prime Minister . . . if the EU aren't prepared to drop the political guff then what else are we supposed to do? We can't force them to give us a better offer.
It also just shows that Boris and his incompetent mates haven't read the FTPA. If we need an election - someone else will be caretaker PM during the election..
I am sure the LDs will be grateful that a core voter such as yourself (voting LD in 2017 when the LDs got 7% and the Tories got 42%) will be voting LD again at the next general election
Unlike you, my vote in 2017 helped the Tories gain a seat from Labour.
You lose seats to the opponents of the Tories, I help them gain them.
Even in Hallam 23% voted for the Tory candidate Ian Walker at the last general election and we held the district seat the LDs were targeting in Epping this year
I correctly recognised the Tories weren't going to win Hallam so swapped my vote with a Lib Dem in North East Derbyshire to help the Tories gain the seat.
Tell me about your council seat you personally fought (and lost) in August 2017.
So you still voted LD then in a seat the Tories held until 1997.
I will tell you about the last district seat I fought in 2018 certainly when I increased the Tory vote to 554 from the 420 the Tories got the last time the seat was up in 2014
It also just shows that Boris and his incompetent mates haven't read the FTPA. If we need an election - someone else will be caretaker PM during the election..
No you haven't read the FTPA.
If we need an election it will be because no government was able to gain Confidence which means Boris remains PM.
If someone else can form a government that can gain confidence then there won't be an election.
Someone else can form a government, extend or revoke, then call an election.
That will be a different election, not a VONC-in-Boris-induced election.
I think Michael Howard dabbled in something similar here with the 'Patient's Passport'. Politically it went down like a lead balloon - the taxpayer subsidising the wealthy's private health care - and was ditched.
With health the problem is one of adverse selection - the private sector will dump all the highest risk patients on the state, while the rich will demand tax cuts and less spending since they have opted out of state provision. The upshot will be a worse service for everyone still reliant on the state. With education the problem is that if the middle class abandon state schools because they get tax relief and so only pay the marginal cost rather than the full cost of more expensive private schooling, then the state schools will inevitably decline in standards. They will also receive less money because it is middle class angst that pressurise politicians to fund schools. I have no doubt that if private schools were banned average spending on state schools per pupil would go up in the long run (this is a thought experiment, I am not advocating banning them although I wish they didn't exist). Why can't the rich just pay their dues and use the same services as everyone else? If the services aren't good enough they should vote for politicians who will improve them for everybody not allow them to escape while everyone else suffers. I don't get it.
Are Man U planning to play Maguire up front? They seem a little short of strike power now.
Arsenal have had a good transfer season though. Top3 imo.
You think Arsenal will beat Spurs?
Arsenal have had their best transfer season in years, I think they'll battle it out with Chelsea for 4th. Liverpool/City battle for top, Spurs third [unless they choke like they did last season] and Manure scrapping it out with Everton and your Leicester for 6th.
I am sure the LDs will be grateful that a core voter such as yourself (voting LD in 2017 when the LDs got 7% and the Tories got 42%) will be voting LD again at the next general election
Unlike you, my vote in 2017 helped the Tories gain a seat from Labour.
You lose seats to the opponents of the Tories, I help them gain them.
Even in Hallam 23% voted for the Tory candidate Ian Walker at the last general election and we held the district seat the LDs were targeting in Epping this year
I correctly recognised the Tories weren't going to win Hallam so swapped my vote with a Lib Dem in North East Derbyshire to help the Tories gain the seat.
Tell me about your council seat you personally fought (and lost) in August 2017.
So you still voted LD then in a seat the Tories held until 1997.
I will tell you about the last district seat I fought in 2018 certainly when I increased the Tory vote to 554 from the 420 the Tories got the last time the seat was up in 2014
It is twenty seven years since the Tories last won Hallam, things have changed.
But thanks for confirming you keep on losing seats/elections, personally I reckon the reason you keep on losing is the people in Essex don't want to vote for a diehard remainer like you.
I am sure the LDs will be grateful that a core voter such as yourself (voting LD in 2017 when the LDs got 7% and the Tories got 42%) will be voting LD again at the next general election
Unlike you, my vote in 2017 helped the Tories gain a seat from Labour.
You lose seats to the opponents of the Tories, I help them gain them.
Even in Hallam 23% voted for the Tory candidate Ian Walker at the last general election and we held the district seat the LDs were targeting in Epping this year
HYUFD = Inception Remainer
- "I'll tell you a riddle. You're waiting for a Brexit Deal, a Brexit Deal that you will take you far away. You know where you hope the Brexit Deal will take you, but you can't know for sure. Yet it doesn't matter. Now, tell me why?"
No we take a clean exit because we can and its the only option available to us that respects our wishes. If there is hurt so be it. Exercising hurts but the motto there is no pain, no gain.
I am sorry Philip but that is just nuts. It is delusional to think that we would have a "clean exit". I have argued the case that the consequences of departure with or without a deal are being grossly overstated and still believe that but to avoid perfectly sensible arrangements with our major trading partners giving us many of the advantages of membership without all the political guff and with minimal cost is, well, nuts.
In an ideal world yes it is nuts, I completely and 100% agree.
But a deal offering "perfectly sensible arrangements with our major trading partners giving us many of the advantages of membership without all the political guff and with minimal cost" has never been on the table.
The backstop is political guff. It has to go. You may be OK with that guff - others are too - but for those of us who aren't which now includes the Prime Minister . . . if the EU aren't prepared to drop the political guff then what else are we supposed to do? We can't force them to give us a better offer.
Have you read what the backstop actually is or have you based your opinion on what the papers say?
No we take a clean exit because we can and its the only option available to us that respects our wishes. If there is hurt so be it. Exercising hurts but the motto there is no pain, no gain.
I am sorry Philip but that is just nuts. It is delusional to think that we would have a "clean exit". I have argued the case that the consequences of departure with or without a deal are being grossly overstated and still believe that but to avoid perfectly sensible arrangements with our major trading partners giving us many of the advantages of membership without all the political guff and with minimal cost is, well, nuts.
In an ideal world yes it is nuts, I completely and 100% agree.
But a deal offering "perfectly sensible arrangements with our major trading partners giving us many of the advantages of membership without all the political guff and with minimal cost" has never been on the table.
The backstop is political guff. It has to go. You may be OK with that guff - others are too - but for those of us who aren't which now includes the Prime Minister . . . if the EU aren't prepared to drop the political guff then what else are we supposed to do? We can't force them to give us a better offer.
Have you read what the backstop actually is or have you based your opinion on what the papers say?
Yes and I have consistently [even at MV3] said it is unacceptable. I have been consistent throughout.
Drop the backstop and we'd be nuts to reject the deal then. Francois is nuts, I am not aligned with Francois. But I'd rather a clean exit than the backstop.
I am sure the LDs will be grateful that a core voter such as yourself (voting LD in 2017 when the LDs got 7% and the Tories got 42%) will be voting LD again at the next general election
Unlike you, my vote in 2017 helped the Tories gain a seat from Labour.
You lose seats to the opponents of the Tories, I help them gain them.
Even in Hallam 23% voted for the Tory candidate Ian Walker at the last general election and we held the district seat the LDs were targeting in Epping this year
I correctly recognised the Tories weren't going to win Hallam so swapped my vote with a Lib Dem in North East Derbyshire to help the Tories gain the seat.
Tell me about your council seat you personally fought (and lost) in August 2017.
So you still voted LD then in a seat the Tories held until 1997.
I will tell you about the last district seat I fought in 2018 certainly when I increased the Tory vote to 554 from the 420 the Tories got the last time the seat was up in 2014
It is twenty seven years since the Tories last won Hallam, things have changed.
But thanks for confirming you keep on losing seats/elections, personally I reckon the reason you keep on losing is the people in Essex don't want to vote for a diehard remainer like you.
That does not stop it still being the most winnable Tory seat in Sheffield, the only district seat I have fought was a LD hold and I increased the Tory vote, unlike you I respect democracy and back Brexit Deal or No Deal
Are Man U planning to play Maguire up front? They seem a little short of strike power now.
Arsenal have had a good transfer season though. Top3 imo.
You think Arsenal will beat Spurs?
Arsenal have had their best transfer season in years, I think they'll battle it out with Chelsea for 4th. Liverpool/City battle for top, Spurs third [unless they choke like they did last season] and Manure scrapping it out with Everton and your Leicester for 6th.
I think both Chelsea and ManU will struggle to make Top 6. Both have had appalling transfer windows. Maguire will come good, but this season will be dire.
Leicester have had a very good window, particularly if Praet comes through. Cutting it a little fine.
No we take a clean exit because we can and its the only option available to us that respects our wishes. If there is hurt so be it. Exercising hurts but the motto there is no pain, no gain.
I am sorry Philip but that is just nuts. It is delusional to think that we would have a "clean exit". I have argued the case that the consequences of departure with or without a deal are being grossly overstated and still believe that but to avoid perfectly sensible arrangements with our major trading partners giving us many of the advantages of membership without all the political guff and with minimal cost is, well, nuts.
In an ideal world yes it is nuts, I completely and 100% agree.
But a deal offering "perfectly sensible arrangements with our major trading partners giving us many of the advantages of membership without all the political guff and with minimal cost" has never been on the table.
The backstop is political guff. It has to go. You may be OK with that guff - others are too - but for those of us who aren't which now includes the Prime Minister . . . if the EU aren't prepared to drop the political guff then what else are we supposed to do? We can't force them to give us a better offer.
Have you read what the backstop actually is or have you based your opinion on what the papers say?
Yes and I have consistently [even at MV3] said it is unacceptable. I have been consistent throughout.
Drop the backstop and we'd be nuts to reject the deal then. Francois is nuts, I am not aligned with Francois. But I'd rather a clean exit than the backstop.
Would you care to actually answer my question. Just because you've been consistently stating it's unacceptable doesn't mean you've read the actual agreement and understand it's details.
I will take your answer as the "NO, I haven't read it", it clearly is.
Despite people's beliefs that it is, the US system is most definitely not a free market system.
There are a lot of laws and regulations designed to please vested interests. In particular a number of laws designed to prevent drugs prices from coming down. The system there is completely broken.
Efficient is not a word that can be used to describe American healthcare at all.
One of the problems with debates over healthcare funding in this country is that people always draw a false dichotomy between our system, on the one hand, and the American system on the other.
Nobody with a brain would pick the American system, because it's (a) rubbish (b) expensive (c) corrupt as hell.
But nobody ever seems to be able to say why the NHS is so superior to the German or Dutch systems.* There's sometimes an almost fetishistic attachment to it that's just embarrassing.
*To be clear, neither of those are perfect either. But I suspect the real reason no politician wants to go for them is because they're more expensive.
+100.
Also, the “envy of the world” schtick hasn’t been true since about 1955.
The UK spends a decent amount less as a percentage of GDP than its European peers, and Canada, but - curiously - more than Australia and NZ.
When I lived in Australia one of the first policies the newly-elected Liberal [aka Conservative] governments after getting elected in 1996 was implement a rebate through the tax system for taking out private medical insurance, despite the fact that Australia has universal coverage through Medicare.
The logic was that it will reduce the stress on Medicare and the government will spend less paying a bit of a rebate on insurance than it will the full coverage and so the healthcare budget will go further on those that actually need it.
So Australia's system is one of universal healthcare like here, but due to the tax system half the country still has private insurance anyway and the universal healthcare spending goes on those who truly need it.
Which makes me laugh when you compare it to here when people look to ban private education etc which would mean the government paying more to pay for the education of those who really don't need the government paying for it.
It goes against the philosophies of many on the left here, but Australia's system is far more progressive.
It very much depends on which state you are in. Queensland public hospitals are infamous. It is the Alabama of Australia.
I am sure the LDs will be grateful that a core voter such as yourself (voting LD in 2017 when the LDs got 7% and the Tories got 42%) will be voting LD again at the next general election
Unlike you, my vote in 2017 helped the Tories gain a seat from Labour.
You lose seats to the opponents of the Tories, I help them gain them.
Even in Hallam 23% voted for the Tory candidate Ian Walker at the last general election and we held the district seat the LDs were targeting in Epping this year
I correctly recognised the Tories weren't going to win Hallam so swapped my vote with a Lib Dem in North East Derbyshire to help the Tories gain the seat.
Tell me about your council seat you personally fought (and lost) in August 2017.
So you still voted LD then in a seat the Tories held until 1997.
I will tell you about the last district seat I fought in 2018 certainly when I increased the Tory vote to 554 from the 420 the Tories got the last time the seat was up in 2014
It is twenty seven years since the Tories last won Hallam, things have changed.
But thanks for confirming you keep on losing seats/elections, personally I reckon the reason you keep on losing is the people in Essex don't want to vote for a diehard remainer like you.
This is magnificent. Tories taking the piss out of each other can only be good for the country.
Comments
One of the reasons Heath became such a joke is because he continued to prat around as a sore loser.
Thatcher's ongoing meddling in Tory politics consolidated people's dislike of her, and damaged the Tory party very badly.
Major and Brown, by contrast, who left with low approval ratings and everyone was glad to see them leave, are now looked back on with something akin to fond nostalgia.
Either a proper socialised medicine, or a great liberalisation and deregulation to get a proper free market solution would be a big improvement on the current mess.
You would need some hefty departures from UNS to turn Thornberry’s 50% margin over the LibDems into a loss.
Just for the record, under the terms of the CTA, UK Citizens do NOT require a passport to visit Dublin. One or two airlines (notably Ryanair) will only accept a passport as ID, the rest will accept any form of photo ID such as driving licence, works ID or bus pass. If travelling to Ireland by ferry, you are advised to have some form of photo ID but in my experience, no ID checks are ever made in either direction.
If the EU wants to prevent no deal they can give a better deal. No fig leaves, a genuine improvement. Otherwise I think we are heavily odds-on now to have no deal on 31 October. About time too.
Nobody with a brain would pick the American system, because it's (a) rubbish (b) expensive (c) corrupt as hell.
But nobody ever seems to be able to say why the NHS is so superior to the German or Dutch systems.* There's sometimes an almost fetishistic attachment to it that's just embarrassing.
*To be clear, neither of those are perfect either. But I suspect the real reason no politician wants to go for them is because they're more expensive.
The whole system is broken and corrupt as hell.
If the EU wants to avoid no deal they can give us a real change. If they don't, so be it.
Also, the “envy of the world” schtick hasn’t been true since about 1955.
The UK spends a decent amount less as a percentage of GDP than its European peers, and Canada, but - curiously - more than Australia and NZ.
The MPs who voted against the deal, whether remainers elected to honour the vote or leavers who thought it was a compromise too far are all a disgrace. They completely failed to act in the national interest and deserve nothing but contempt.
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/1159506567336747009?s=21
The healthcare system I judge partly on the level of its coverage.
On that basis, I maintain the US healthcare system is rubbish.
Bloody hell...
The logic was that it will reduce the stress on Medicare and the government will spend less paying a bit of a rebate on insurance than it will the full coverage and so the healthcare budget will go further on those that actually need it.
So Australia's system is one of universal healthcare like here, but due to the tax system half the country still has private insurance anyway and the universal healthcare spending goes on those who truly need it.
Which makes me laugh when you compare it to here when people look to ban private education etc which would mean the government paying more to pay for the education of those who really don't need the government paying for it.
It goes against the philosophies of many on the left here, but Australia's system is far more progressive.
Introducing a genuine public option would open up economies of scale
I wonder what percentage of the UK popn has BUPA etc. The difference is of course there is no rebate.
There are more ads for private GP type services on the tube, too.
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/history/f1/nigel-mansells-best-drives
I watched Mansell's Lotus drive in 1983.
Forgot to take any earplugs, and my ears have never been the same since.
Its like if I'm driving down the road and see someone stood in the middle of the road - if I crash into them it will do more damage to them than me. But if I want to avoid the crash I will take evasive action still.
The time for a figleaf was when May was in charge, its too little, too late now. Real change or a clean exit - and they can decide between those.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11155731/13m-lawsuit-proves-Red-Bull-doesnt-give-you-wings.html
Doing so would probably save the NHS a fortune. But the idea of doing so seems to be far too toxic currently.
https://youtu.be/GDpmVUEjagg
And next time, give us Arthur chance.
We understand that with welfare, I don't know why it is so alien for other areas.
It is not our wishes. Not even close.
Also, there is no ‘gain’ from Brexit. The best case scenario is that nothing changes from what we already have.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1498000/Patient-passport-policy-must-be-dumped-insists-Tory-spokesman.html
The appointment of Patel was the one concerning thing from the cabinet but this is simply excellent news and it seems the idea of Patel as some extreme authoritarian ogre is a myth. Good.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1159433041460256769
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1159513409404243968
We negotiated a deal, Parliament rejected it, that was Parliament preferring no deal over that deal. Unless a new deal arrives, and unless Parliament revokes or forces an extension, then Parliament has chosen no deal. Literally.
If I hand in notice for my job, then during my notice period reject every job offer I'm given, then at the end of the notice period say I'm shocked to be unemployed is that reasonable? I have literally got no job in that scenario, having rejected my old job and rejected job offers. It doesn't matter if I don't want to have no job, that is the default alternative to having one and to rejecting what is available.
No deal is not what we voted for, its not what we want.
Therefore we revoke and stay in the EU.
You lose seats to the opponents of the Tories, I help them gain them.
I haven't even opened my first cider yet.
Either we accept a deal, or we have no deal.
I would like very much to win the lottery, but it doesn't mean I will, especially since I've never bought a lottery ticket. If Parliament doesn't accept a deal, it has no deal. It isn't a choice, it is the absence of a choice.
If we need an election it will be because no government was able to gain Confidence which means Boris remains PM.
If someone else can form a government that can gain confidence then there won't be an election.
Tell me about your council seat you personally fought (and lost) in August 2017.
But a deal offering "perfectly sensible arrangements with our major trading partners giving us many of the advantages of membership without all the political guff and with minimal cost" has never been on the table.
The backstop is political guff. It has to go. You may be OK with that guff - others are too - but for those of us who aren't which now includes the Prime Minister . . . if the EU aren't prepared to drop the political guff then what else are we supposed to do? We can't force them to give us a better offer.
https://es.pn/2M8Jz54
Kane Williamson - the classiest batsman of modern times in every sense.
*not really, of course.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/14/section/2/enacted
I will tell you about the last district seat I fought in 2018 certainly when I increased the Tory vote to 554 from the 420 the Tories got the last time the seat was up in 2014
With education the problem is that if the middle class abandon state schools because they get tax relief and so only pay the marginal cost rather than the full cost of more expensive private schooling, then the state schools will inevitably decline in standards. They will also receive less money because it is middle class angst that pressurise politicians to fund schools. I have no doubt that if private schools were banned average spending on state schools per pupil would go up in the long run (this is a thought experiment, I am not advocating banning them although I wish they didn't exist).
Why can't the rich just pay their dues and use the same services as everyone else? If the services aren't good enough they should vote for politicians who will improve them for everybody not allow them to escape while everyone else suffers. I don't get it.
Arsenal have had a good transfer season though. Top3 imo.
Arsenal have had their best transfer season in years, I think they'll battle it out with Chelsea for 4th. Liverpool/City battle for top, Spurs third [unless they choke like they did last season] and Manure scrapping it out with Everton and your Leicester for 6th.
But thanks for confirming you keep on losing seats/elections, personally I reckon the reason you keep on losing is the people in Essex don't want to vote for a diehard remainer like you.
- "I'll tell you a riddle. You're waiting for a Brexit Deal, a Brexit Deal that you will take you far away. You know where you hope the Brexit Deal will take you, but you can't know for sure. Yet it doesn't matter. Now, tell me why?"
- "Because we'll be Better Together."
Drop the backstop and we'd be nuts to reject the deal then. Francois is nuts, I am not aligned with Francois. But I'd rather a clean exit than the backstop.
Leicester have had a very good window, particularly if Praet comes through. Cutting it a little fine.
I will take your answer as the "NO, I haven't read it", it clearly is.